THE MONOGAMY MANDATE: A HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL RE-EXAMINATION

Written by Maverick D. Marquez M.S

Maverick D. Marquez, MS, is an emerging voice in Biblical marriage and polygyny advocacy. Holding a Master's degree in Criminal Psychology from American Military University, he specializes in the psychological and scriptural foundations of traditional family structures. As an online apologist for Christianity and Torah observance, Marquez has dedicated the last 2 years to studying Biblical marital laws, digital content creation, and influencing discussions on faith-based living through his online presence. [redpillchristian144.1] His writings delve into the intersections of ancient texts, modern psychology, and relational dynamics, promoting biblically grounded solutions to contemporary marital challenges. A devoted covenant man to two exceptional women and father of three children, he draws from personal experience to inform his work.

Personal COMMENT: THE MONOGAMY MANDATE

This work is profoundly personal to me. For the last 2 years, I have watched and endured the heartbreaking loss of cherished friends and family members, both of blood and in-law relationships severed not by accident or indifference, but by deep-seated misunderstandings and judgments surrounding the topic of biblical polygyny. These divisions have left lasting scars, as doors were closed to my loved ones and me without a moment's pause to engage with the historical and biblical evidence. None of those who turned away took the time to study the facts presented in Scripture or the scholarly record; instead, they relied on cultural assumptions and modern norms that, as this paper will demonstrate, diverge significantly from the original teachings. I hope that this re-examination will foster understanding, heal rifts, and encourage a return to the unfiltered witness of the Bible, where polygyny is regulated rather than condemned. In sharing this, I do so not out of bitterness, but out of a sincere desire for truth and reconciliation from those we love and those who desire to know us better.

Abstract

The Hebrew Scriptures (Tanakh) and both the Old and New Testament contain no explicit prohibition of polygyny (a man having multiple wives). Polygyny is presented as a regulated institution throughout the patriarchal narratives, the Mosaic legislation, and the lives of many righteous figures. Nevertheless, by the High Middle Ages, both rabbinic Judaism and Western Christianity had effectively proscribed the practice. This paper argues that the decisive turning point was not exegetical or theological discovery of a hitherto unnoticed biblical ban, but rather a deliberate rabbinic enactment around 1000 CE by Rabbenu Gershom ben Judah (c. 960–1040), followed centuries later by analogous pressures in Christendom. These changes were driven by socio-political adaptation rather than fidelity to the written Torah or the teachings of Yeshua (Jesus) and the apostles. The paper further contends that post-exilic and medieval justifications for the ban—primarily appeals to “family harmony” and the avoidance of strife—are historically selective and theologically inadequate when measured against the biblical witness and contemporary monogamous divorce statistics. Additionally, this analysis incorporates the eschatological prophecy of Isaiah 4:1–2, which envisions a restorative role for polygyny in the divine plan, extending its implications to New Testament believers through the metaphor of God's vine.

Formal Introduction

In contemporary religious discourse, a pervasive assumption prevails that the Scriptures of Judaism and Christianity unequivocally forbid the practice of a man having multiple wives—casting it as inherently sinful or incompatible with divine will. This view underpins modern norms in both traditions, where monogamy is often presented as the biblical ideal, and deviations are met with moral censure. However, a closer examination of the legal and historical data reveals a stark contrast: the Hebrew Scriptures (Tanakh) and the New Testament contain no explicit prohibition against polygyny, instead regulating it as a legitimate institution through provisions that protect wives' rights and ensure equitable treatment, as seen in the lives of patriarchal figures and Mosaic laws.

This publication argues that neither the Torah nor the New Testament prohibits polygyny, and that Jewish and Christian bans emerged from socio-political developments—namely the Gershomite takkanah and Roman legal assimilation—rather than from biblical exegesis.

The argument proceeds as follows: First, the biblical legal foundations are examined, highlighting Torah passages that regulate polygyny and affirm its normative status (Exodus 21:10; Deuteronomy 21:15–17; Deuteronomy 25:5–10). Next, the historical turning point in Judaism is analyzed, focusing on the Gershomite ban as a legislative innovation driven by medieval socio-political realities rather than Torah law. This is followed by a tracing of how Christian monogamy arose through the adoption of Roman legal norms rather than scriptural mandates. The essay then evaluates and rebuts modern claims that biblical family tension serves as evidence of divine disapproval of polygyny. Prophetic and eschatological considerations are then addressed, interpreting Isaiah 4:1–2 within its historical and theological context as a legitimate prophetic text involving plural marriage. Theological implications are explored, emphasizing the significance of divine immutability and the inconsistency of permanent bans with the unchanging nature of biblical law. Finally, the findings are integrated into a conclusion that assesses monogamy-only norms as post-biblical innovations.

To maintain focus, this essay concentrates on biblical, historical, and theological analysis, eschewing discussions of contemporary sociological or pastoral models of plural marriage.

1. Polygyny in the Hebrew Scriptures: Permission and Regulation, Not Prohibition

The Torah nowhere forbids a man taking multiple wives. To the contrary:

• Exodus 21:10 explicitly protects the rights of a first wife when a second is taken: “If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights.”

• Deuteronomy 17:17 cautions kings, not against polygyny per se, but against excessive accumulation of wives that might “turn away his heart” (a warning arguably violated by Solomon, but not by David or most other polygynous figures).

• Deuteronomy 21:15–17 regulates inheritance in polygynous households to prevent favoritism.

Major biblical figures who practiced polygyny without divine censure include Abraham (Genesis 16; 25:1–6), Jacob (Genesis 29–30), Gideon (Judges 8:30), Elkanah (1st Samuel 1:1–2), David (2nd Samuel 3:2–5; 5:13), and presumably many others. As a matter of fact; the Davidic lineage itself—central to messianic expectation—emerges from a polygynous household.

The Levirate law (Deuteronomy 25:5–10) and the narratives of the concubines of judges and kings further presuppose the normality of polygynous arrangements. Even the prophetic imagery of YHWH as husband to two sisters (Israel and Judah, Ezekiel 23) or to multiple entities employs polygynous metaphors without apology.

2. The Rabbinic Turning Point: The Takkanah of Rabbenu Gershom (c. 1000 CE)

Prior to the 11th century, polygyny remained licit and practiced among Jewish communities from Babylonia to Spain. Maimonides (12th century, Sephardic) still felt compelled to defend its theoretical permissibility while noting its rarity (Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Ishut 14:3).

The decisive break occurred in the Rhineland with the herem (ban) attributed to Rabbenu Gershom ben Judah, known as the “Herem de-Rabbenu Gershom.” Promulgated around the year 1000 CE, it prohibited:

1. Polygynous marriage (except in narrowly defined cases, e.g., levirate refusal where the first wife was infertile or insane).

2. Unilateral divorce without the wife’s consent.

The ban was originally framed as binding only on Ashkenazi communities for 1,000 years (until roughly 2000 CE in traditional reckoning) and was never universally accepted. Sephardic, Yemenite (Teimani), and Mizrahi Jews continued to permit polygyny where local Islamic law allowed it, and some communities practiced it into the 20th century (e.g., Yemenite Jews until Operation Magic Carpet in 1949–50).

The stated rationale was pragmatic: to reduce family strife, protect women in the precarious conditions of exile, and harmonize Jewish practice with the monogamous norms of medieval Christian Europe. No claim was made that polygyny violated the written Torah; the ban was openly presented as a takkanah (rabbinic corrective decree), not a pesak din (ruling derived from Torah law).

3. The Christian Adoption of Monogamy-Only: Roman Law and Greco Philosophy, Not Scripture

Early Christianity inherited the Jewish allowance of polygyny. Church fathers such as Justin Martyr (2nd century), Irenaeus, and Tertullian criticized pagan sexual license but did not condemn Old Testament polygynists. Augustine (On the Good of Marriage, c. 401) explicitly states that polygyny was permissible in patriarchal times and would be again if God so willed.

The decisive shift in Christendom occurred not through new exegesis but through incorporation into the Roman Empire:

• Theodosian Code (438 CE) and later Justinian Code (529–534 CE) imposed Roman monogamous norms on all subjects, including Christians.

• Germanic tribal laws (e.g., Visigothic Code) and the evolving canon law of the Latin Church progressively treated polygyny as bigamy punishable by excommunication.

By the 9th–11th centuries, the Latin Church—now the dominant force in Western Europe—had fully internalized Roman monogamy as “Christian” doctrine. The Eastern Orthodox churches, operating under Byzantine law, were somewhat more tolerant in practice but still discouraged polygyny after Christianization.

Thus, both the Ashkenazi herem and the Western Christian prohibition emerged in the same broad historical window (roughly 800–1100 CE) in response to the same pressure: the need to assimilate to the monogamous legal and cultural norms of medieval Christian Europe.

4. The “Strife and Hardship” Argument: Selective Reading and Contemporary Counter-Evidence

Modern religious apologetics for monogamy-only frequently cite strife in biblical polygynous families (Sarah–Hagar, Rachel–Leah, Hannah–Peninnah) as proof that the practice is inherently flawed. This argument is theologically and statistically weak:

1. The Torah itself anticipates and regulates strife rather than prohibiting the institution (Exodus 21:10; Deuteronomy 21:15–17).

2. Monogamous biblical families exhibit comparable or greater dysfunction: Adam and Eve (expulsion), Isaac and Rebekah (deception over blessing), numerous infertile monogamous wives.

3. Contemporary data undermine the claim that monogamy guarantees harmony: Western divorce rates hover between 40–50%, with women initiating approximately 70–80% of divorces in heterosexual marriages (American Sociological Review, 2015; Rosenfeld 2017). Serial monogamy has replaced stable polygyny in many traditional societies that formerly practiced the latter.

If the presence of strife were sufficient grounds to abrogate a biblically regulated institution, then marriage itself—monogamous or otherwise—would have to be abandoned.

5. Prophetic Endorsement: Isaiah 4:1–2 and the Eschatological Restoration Through Polygyny

Beyond the historical and regulatory biblical framework, the Hebrew prophets provide forward-looking endorsement of polygyny as a mechanism for divine restoration. Isaiah 4:1–2 offers a striking eschatological prophecy: “In that day seven women will take hold of one man and say, ‘We will eat our own food and provide our own clothes; only let us be called by your name. Take away our disgrace!’ In that day the Branch of the Lord will be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the land will be the pride and glory of the survivors in Israel.”

This passage, set in the context of judgment and renewal following Isaiah 3’s depiction of societal collapse, envisions a future where demographic imbalances (likely from war or exile) lead seven women to seek marriage with one man. Notably, they waive traditional economic provisions (cf. Exodus 21:10), emphasizing the urgency of removing “disgrace” (childlessness or widowhood in ancient Near Eastern culture). The immediate sequel in verse 2 links this scenario to the flourishing of “the Branch of the Lord”—a messianic figure (cf. Isaiah 11:1; Jeremiah 23:5; Zechariah 3:8)—and the fruitful restoration of Israel.

This prophetic scenario is not without historical parallels, where wars have drastically skewed sex ratios, prompting societies to adopt or tolerate polygyny to facilitate demographic recovery. For instance, following the War of the Triple Alliance (1864–1870) in Paraguay, which resulted in the deaths of up to 70% of the male population and immediate post-war sex ratios as low as 0.3 men per woman (approximately four women per man), the country saw shifts in marriage practices, including higher out-of-wedlock birth rates, more female-headed households, and informal polygamous arrangements. These adaptations contributed to a gradual population rebound, with sex ratios recovering to near parity by 1950 (1.04 women per man) and persisting effects on gender norms toward greater equality over 150 years later (Alix-Garcia et al. 2022). Similarly, after the Thirty Years' War (1618–1648) in Europe, which decimated populations in German states (with losses estimated at 20–40% overall and severe male shortages), proposals emerged in places like Nuremberg to legalize polygamy temporarily to address the surplus of women and aid repopulation, though these were debated but not widely implemented (Cairncross 1974). These historical examples illustrate how polygyny can serve as a practical mechanism for restoration in times of demographic crisis, much as Isaiah envisions in an eschatological context of divine renewal.

For New Testament believers, this prophecy takes on added layers through Christological fulfillment. Yeshua identifies himself as “the vine” (John 15:1–5), with believers as branches that must abide in him to bear fruit. The “vine” motif echoes Israel as YHWH’s vineyard (Isaiah 5:1–7; 27:2–6), which requires cultivation and multiplication for restoration. Isaiah 4:1–2 thus portrays polygyny not as a concession to hardship but as a literal divine strategy for repopulating and revitalizing the covenant community. By enabling one man to father children with multiple wives, the practice facilitates exponential growth, mirroring YHWH’s use of polygyny in forming the twelve tribes through Jacob’s four mothers (Genesis 29–30) and multiplying Israel in Egypt (Exodus 1:7–12) to overcome oppression.

The rabbinic ban and Christian monogamy mandate, by forbidding this biblically attested tool, undermine God’s prophetic blueprint for restoration. If the Messiah is “the same yesterday and today and forever” (Hebrews 13:8), then altering marriage norms to align with Greco-Roman ideals contradicts the unchanging divine will expressed in both Torah and prophecy.

6. Theological Implications: Immutable Law and the Charge of Hellenization

The strongest biblical argument against the medieval monogamy mandate rests on the doctrine of divine immutability:

• Malachi 3:6: “For I the LORD do not change.”

• Hebrews 13:8: “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.”

If polygyny was part of YHWH’s mechanism for multiplying Israel (Exodus 1:7–12; the very formation of the twelve tribes through four mothers), and if Isaiah 4:1–2 prophesies its role in eschatological renewal—applicable to New Testament believers via the vine metaphor—then its prohibition constitutes a human amendment to divine law.

The historical evidence strongly suggests that the decisive influence was not Semitic or biblical, but Greco-Roman:

• Plato (Laws) and Aristotle (Politics) had already idealized monogamy.

• Stoic philosophy emphasized the equality of spouses in a way foreign to ancient Near Eastern norms.

• Roman law treated bigamy as a public crime.

The adoption of monogamy-only by both medieval Judaism and Christianity therefore represents one of the clearest instances of Hellenistic cultural captivity in the post-biblical era.

7. Conclusion:

The effective elimination of polygyny from mainstream Judaism and Christianity was not the result of fresh scriptural insight but of deliberate legislative acts: the herem of Rabbenu Gershom for Ashkenazi Jews and the assimilation of Roman law for Latin Christendom. These changes were pragmatic responses to exile, diaspora insecurity, and the need to coexist with a monogamous Christian Europe. They were never presented in their own time as discoveries of biblical prohibition, and they lack support in the plain text of either the Torah or the New Testament.

Isaiah 4:1–2 further challenges the ban by depicting polygyny as integral to God’s restorative plan, extending to New Testament believers through the vine imagery of John 15. To maintain that polygyny is intrinsically sinful or abolished by God requires reading the Bible through the lens of 11th-century European social norms rather than allowing the text to speak on its own terms. Given the absence of any explicit abrogation in Scripture, the continued divine self-description as unchanging, and the demographic success of polygynous arrangements in the biblical narrative itself—including their prophetic role in renewal—the burden of proof lies heavily on those who would declare a once-permitted institution permanently forbidden.

The monogamy mandate, far from being a triumph of biblical fidelity, may represent one of the most successful—and least acknowledged—instances of cultural accommodation in the history of both Judaism and Christianity.

Personal End Note

In closing, I reiterate that the intention of this publication is offered in hope and prayer that those who frown upon or look down on individuals advocating for biblical marriage would apply 2nd Timothy 2:15 to their lives: “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” This is by no means a criticism of those who have chosen to be in a monogamous relationship, as that is equally righteous in God’s eyes. Rather, it is a call to love all of God’s word and not treat it like a buffet where we pick and choose what we want to take in, while leaving the rest. May YHWH and our Messiah Yeshua bless every one of you.

References

1. Augustine, On the Good of Marriage (De Bono Coniugali), 401, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1309.htm.

2. Maimonides (Rambam), Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Ishut (Laws of Marriage) 14:3, https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Marriage.14.3.

3. Plato, Laws, trans. R. G. Bury, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, n.d.).

4. Aristotle, Politics, trans. H. Rackham, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, n.d.).

5. The Theodosian Code, 438 CE, trans. Clyde Pharr, The Theodosian Code and Novels, and the Sirmondian Constitutions (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1952).

6. The Justinian Code, 529–534 CE, trans. S. P. Scott, The Civil Law, 1932, https://droitromain.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr/Anglica/CJ5_Scott.htm.

7. The Holy Bible, New International Version (NIV), various editions (references to Exodus, Deuteronomy, Genesis, Judges, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, Ezekiel, Isaiah, Malachi, John, and Hebrews).

8. Elisheva Baumgarten, Practicing Piety in Medieval Ashkenaz: Men, Women, and Everyday Religious Observance (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004) (discusses the Herem of Rabbenu Gershom and its impact on family law).

9. Shaye J. D. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999) (explores Hellenistic influences on Jewish marriage norms).

10. Avraham Grossman, Pious and Rebellious: Jewish Women in Medieval Europe (Waltham, MA: Brandeis University Press, 2004) (covers the ban on polygamy in Ashkenazi communities).

11. David Instone-Brewer, Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: The Social and Literary Context (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002) (discusses early Christian views on marriage and polygamy).

12. Michael J. Rosenfeld, "Who Initiates Divorce? Gender and the Dissolution of Heterosexual Unions" (paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Chicago, IL, 2015), https://www.asanet.org/women-more-likely-men-initiate-divorces-not-non-marital-breakups/.

13. Michael J. Rosenfeld, "Marriage, Choice, and Couplehood in the Age of the Internet," Sociological Science 4 (2017): 490–510, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319565305_Marriage_Choice_and_Couplehood_in_the_Age_of_the_Internet.

14. Michael L. Satlow, Jewish Marriage in Antiquity (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001) (analyzes polygamy in ancient Judaism and its regulation).

15. Walter Scheidel, "Monogamy and Polygyny in Greece, Rome, and World History," Princeton/Stanford Working Papers in Classics, 2009, https://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/060807.pdf (discusses Greco-Roman influences on marriage norms).

16. John Witte Jr., From Sacrament to Contract: Marriage, Religion, and Law in the Western Tradition (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2012) (examines the shift to monogamy in Christianity via Roman law).

17. Dov Zlotnick, "The Seven Women Seeking the Bridegroom: Isaiah 4:1 as Transition Point in a Redemption Allegory," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 59 (2022), https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/the-seven-women-seeking-the-bridegroom-isaiah-41-as-transition-point-in-a-redemption-allegory.